The lightweight contender already lost a promised title shot when he opted to fight instead of waiting on the sidelines. But don’t think Pettis is necessarily anxious to avoid a similar situation.

Pettis (15-2 MMA, 2-1 UFC) returns from a nearly yearlong injury layoff when he meets Cerrone (19-4 MMA, 6-1 UFC) in a FOX-televised main card bout at Chicago’s United Center. If victorious, he’d likely be in line for the winner of April’s UFC on FOX 7 headliner between lightweight champion Benson Henderson and Strikeforce’s imported titleholder, Gilbert Melendez.

However, that means it could be well into the second half of the year before Pettis or anyone else gets the next shot.

“It’s a long time, man – a long time” he told MMAjunkie.com (www.mmajunkie.com). “I had a year off this year, and it killed me being on the sidelines looking in. The whole division is moving. Look at ‘Cowboy.’ He won a bunch of fights in a row. If he hadn’t lost to (Nate) Diaz, I think he would have been before me for a title shot.

“So (I’m) not sure, man. I’ve got ‘Cowboy’ in my sights right now. We’ll see the outcome and go from there.”

Pettis and Cerrone both come from the WEC, where Pettis was the organization’s final lightweight champion. Both fighters were prominent figures in the promotion’s star-studded 155-pound division, though surprisingly, their paths never crossed.

In fact, Pettis said, he was surprised when Cerrone began calling him out and alleged “Showtime” had been ducking him. The timing was especially confusing.

“For him to call me out to saying I’m scared or something like that, it’s like ‘Where the hell did that come from?'” Pettis said. “I was hurt and can’t fight. But the contract’s now signed, and we’re a couple days away, so I’m excited to solve everything.”

Pettis, who turns 27 a few hours after Saturday’s bout, has posted wins over Jeremy Stephens and Joe Lauzon since a decision loss to Clay Guida that cost him his title shot in 2011. While it’d be easy to look past Cerrone and ahead to the Henderson-Melendez winner, Pettis said he can’t overlook an opponent who’s won eight of his past nine fights, six of which have earned fight-night bonuses.

“He’s making that easy (to not look ahead),” Pettis said. “He’s a tough opponent. He’s one of those guys you can’t sleep on. You can’t walk through ‘Cowboy.’ I mean, he’s one of the best lightweights in the division. I’m just focused on him and his skill set and how to beat him, and that’s it. Whatever happens after the lightweight [title fight] … well, it’s going to come when it comes. I took a year off. I’m just going to be happy to get some Ws under my belt.”

That means at least three fights a year. With a new daughter (18-month-old Aria), Pettis said he’s literally fighting for his daughter’s future. More time on the sidelines means less income, and he’s determined to keep his family out of the types of rough neighborhoods where he grew up following his father’s death.

Pettis said that kind of motivation transcends any mythical ring rust heading into another pivotal bout.

“I don’t think there’s ring rust when it comes to fighting,” he said. “A fight is a fight. If I have to fight somebody tomorrow, I have to be ready to fight. This is my job. This is what I’m training for. This is what I’ve been doing for a long time. I kind of grew up with fighting, so I don’t think ring rust is going to be a problem. I’ve been competing since I was 5 years old in tournament, so I’ll just jump back in where I left off.”

The Latest

In this week’s Trading Shots, Danny Downes and Ben Fowlkes look at Ronda Rousey’s 34-second victory over Bethe Correia at UFC 190 and try to put it into terms that capture the moment without getting swept away by it.

A total of 26 fighters got their chance to shine on Saturday as part of UFC 190 at Rio de Janeiro’s HSBC Arena. Now that UFC 190 is in the books, it’s time to commence MMAjunkie’s “Three Stars” ceremony.

The man known for cranking submissions to the point of injury added eye-gouging to his repertoire. But is the controversy of Rousimar Palhares too essential to his bizarre, awful appeal for his employers to take any meaningful action against him?